8/30 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT. Member State : Germany. Accompanying the document

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, SWD(2012) 379 final 8/30 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Member State : Germany Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) River Basin Management Plans {COM(2012) 670 final} EN EN

2 1. GENERAL INFORMATION Figure 1.1: Map of River Basin District International River Basin Districts (within EU) International River Basin Districts (outside EU) National River Basin Districts (within EU) Countries (outside EU) Coastal Waters Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 2

3 Population: 82 million Total area: km² RBD Name Size 1 (km 2 ) % share of total basin in DE DE1000 Danube (56259 in DE) 7 DE2000 Rhine ( in DE) 54 Countries sharing RBD AT, BA, BG, CH, CZ, HR, HU, IT, MD, ME, MK, PL, RO, RS, SI, SK, UA, AL AT, BE, CH, FR, IT, LI, LU, NL DE3000 Ems (17117 in DE) 84 NL DE4000 Weser DE5000 Elbe (99506 in DE) 65.5 AT, CZ, PL DE6000 Odra (9600 in DE) 7.7 CZ, PL DE7000 Meuse (3984 in DE) 11.6 BE, FR, LU, NL DE9500 Eider 9202 (DE only 2 ) - DK DE9610 Schlei/Trave 9218 (DE only 3 ) DK DE9650 Warnow/Peene Table 1.1: Overview of Germany s River Basin Districts Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE 4 : Area includes coastal waters. Total size not possible to determine as the Danish section is part of a larger river basin. Total size not possible to determine as the Danish section is part of a larger river basin. This MS Annex reflects the information reported by the MS to WISE which may have been updated since the adoption of the RBMPs. For this reason there may be some discrepancies between the information reported in the RBMPs and WISE. 3

4 The following provides an overview of German RBDS and the Länder they cover. RBD Federal State included in RBD % of territorial share per Federal State DE1000 Bavaria, Baden-Wuerttemberg Bavaria (6%), Baden-Wuerttemberg (1%) DE2000 DE3000 DE4000 DE5000 DE6000 Baden-Wuerttemberg, Rhineland- Palatine, Saarland, Hessia, North Rhine- Westphalia, Bavaria, Lower Saxony, and Thuringia North Rhine-Westphalia, Lower Saxony Bavaria, Bremen, Hessia, Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia, Saxon-Anhalt, and Thuringia Bavaria, Berlin, Brandenburg, Hamburg, Mecklenburg-West Pommerania, Lower Saxony, Saxonia, Saxon-Anhalt, Schleswig-Holstein, Thuringia Mecklenburg-West Pommerania, Brandenburg, Saxonia Baden-Wuerttemberg (not possible to determine), Rhineland-Palatine (2%), Saarland (1.7%), Hessia (6.1%), North Rhine-Westphalia (not reported in the plan), Bavaria (not possible to determine), Lower Saxony (not possible to determine), Thuringia (about 0.4%) 23% in North Rhine-Westphalia, 61% in Lower Saxony Bavaria (0.1%), Bremen (0.8%), Hessia (18.4%), Lower Saxony (including transitional and coastal waters: 60.1%), North Rhine-Westphalia (10.1%), Saxon- Anhalt (1.4%), Thuringia (9.1%) Information not reported in the plan 5 Information not reported in the plan 6 DE7000 North Rhine-Westphalia Information not reported in the NRW plan DE9500 Schleswig-Holstein 100% DE9610 Mecklenburg-West Pommerania, Schleswig-Holstein DE9650 Mecklenburg-West Pommerania 100% Table 1.2: Länder governing the different German RBDs Source: RBMPs Mecklenburg-West Pommerania (9.45%), Schleswig Holstein (90.55%) 5 6 The German share of the basin is split into sections, of which multiple Länder are covered. Only the % of each section compared to the total % of the basin is mentioned in the plan. The German share of the basin is split into sections, of which multiple Länder are covered. Only the % of each section compared to the total % of the basin is mentioned in the plan. 4

5 Name international river basin National RBD Countries sharing RBD Danube DE1000 AT, BA, BG, CH, CZ, HR, HU, IT, MD, ME, MK, PL, RO, RS, SI, SK, UA, AL Rhine DE2000 AT, BE, CH, FR, IT, LI, LU, NL Ems DE3000 NL Ems-Dollart DE3000 NL Elbe DE5000 AT, CZ, PL Co-ordination category 1 3 km² % km² % Odra DE6000 CZ, PL Meuse DE7000 BE, FR, LU, NL Vidaa/Wiedau (Rudboel Soe/Ruttebülle DE9500 DK r See) Jardelund Groeft/Jardelu nder DE9500 DK Graben/Bongsi eler Kanal Krusaa/Krusau DE9610 DK 6 26 Table 1.3: Transboundary river basins by category (see CSWD section 8.1) and % share in Germany 7 Category 1: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body, RBMP in place. Category 2: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body in place. Category 3: Co-operation agreement in place. Category 4: No co-operation formalised. Source: EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU. 2. STATUS OF RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT PLAN REPORTING AND COMPLIANCE The RBMPs were adopted on 22 December 2009 or earlier 8. RBMPs were reported to the Commission in March 2010: the Danube, Elbe, Weser, Meuse and Schlei/Trave on the 4 th ; the Eider and Warnow/Peene on the 9 th ; the Odra on the 19 th ; and the Ems and the Rhine on the 22 nd. Germany is a federal state and this is reflected by the different approaches to co-ordination in the context of the WFD. Some Länder worked together to submit one plan, while other 7 8 Categorisation determined under the EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU (Task 1b: International co-ordination mechanisms). Depending on the international commissions and the Länder. 5

6 Länder produced individual plans for the same basin, sometimes to varying degree of detail. The result of these differences is only a patchwork of information on how the WFD is being implemented 9. Nevertheless, one of the strengths of the plans is that they all follow a similar structure, making them easy to follow and compare. This has been helpful during the public participation phase. In general, the RBMPs are readable, even for non-technical persons. The German RBMPs are useful information tools that summarise the work being carried out under the WFD. Specific information on precise implementation is found in other documents, which have not been officially submitted. On the other hand, the plans give only a limited picture of which methodologies have been used or which measures will be implemented. It is also not always clear what has been coordinated by the LAWA (LänderarbeitsgruppeWasser) with respect to monitoring, status and economic assessments. The information as regards methodologies required to implement the GWD is often missing but this could be explained by the fact the GWD had not been transposed into national law when the plans were drafted. In addition, the plans give a short summary regarding the work to be carried out under the programmes of measures. Information regarding the allocation of the financial resources to measure implementation is lacking, so it is unclear what will be achieved in the 1 st planning cycle. Strengths and Weaknesses of the German RBMPs were: Of the river basin districts that fall within the borders of Germany the Danube, Rhine, Maas, Ems, Weser, Oder, Elbe, Eider, Warnow/Peene and Schlei/Trave - eight extend into other countries, with only the Weser and Warnow/Peene being managed in Germany alone. Germany is a federal state made up of sixteen Länder sharing these 10 basins. This federal structure is reflected by the different approaches to coordination in the context of the WFD. The following is a summary of the main strengths and weaknesses of the German plans: Governance: The federal structure requires additional efforts for water management. A specific working group Länderarbeitsguppe Wasser was set up to co-ordinate among Länder. The aim was to develop common methodologies and approaches. In addition some Länder formed a national River Basins commission. So some Länder worked more closely together to submit one plan, while other Länder produced individual plans for the same basin, sometimes to varying degrees of detail and with different methodologies. The result of these differences is only a patchwork of information on how the WFD is being implemented. Nevertheless, the strength of the plans is that they all follow a similar structure, making them easy to follow and compare. This has been helpful during the public participation phase. In general, the RBMPs are readable, even for non-technical persons. The German RBMPs are useful information tools to get a general idea of the working being carried out under the WFD. Specific information on precise implementation is found in other documents, which have not been officially submitted. Characterisation of the RBDs: 9 The federal structure of Germany defines these competencies in the German Constitution. 6

7 In general the German RBMPs reported that typologies have been developed and are in place for all water categories in all river basins. Furthermore, a common approach was taken by all RBDs. However, some individual RBDs have no defined transitional water bodies and no information as to why is provided in the plans (Odra, Schlei/ Trave, Warnow/Peene). A largely uniform nationwide approach LAWA (LänderarbeitsgruppeWasser), based on the EU CIS guidance, has been applied for the identification of pressures and impacts in the German RBDs, allowing for easy comparison. Yet, in some RBMPs specific criteria/thresholds to identify significant pressures are not described. Reference conditions are well developed in all German RBDs with some shortcomings in some RBDs regarding the water categories rivers, lakes and coastal waters. Monitoring The German plans indicate a high level of ambition with respect to monitoring: often the monitoring networks go significantly beyond the explicit and implicit WFD minimum requirements. The monitoring of chemical substances especially has been extensively addressed. Nevertheless, with respect to BQEs, there are unclear or inconsistent approaches to selected BQEs most sensitive to pressures, making it difficult to compare RBDs between Länder. In addition, not all monitoring sites measure BQEs. Assessment of Ecological Status of Surface Waters For the most part, nationwide standards and approaches (through LAWA and RAKON) have been developed and applied in the German RBDs for type-specific ecological status assessments. Previously lacking assessment methodology for BQEs have now been developed and especially sensitive BQEs have been identified. Despite the progress on methodologies, there are still some gaps in implementation for some water categories (e.g. lakes) and BQEs (e.g. macroinvertebrates). Transparency is still an issue as regards how ecological assessments are addressed for transitional and coastal waters. In the plans, information for the assessment of the status quality assurance is very general, making it difficult to judge whether uncertainties have been properly addressed. Designation of HMWBs The designation of HMWB mostly followed the steps in the CIS guidance. Information on methodologies for setting GEP was not that clear in all RBMPs. Assessment of Chemical Status The first assessment of chemical quality was supported by a comprehensive assessment of all priority substances. This serves as a strong basis for undertaking trend analyses in the future and developing future programmes on the basis of the trends. A very few substances, however, still lack proper analytical tools to make a proper chemical quality assessment. In addition, there appear to be different and partly non WFD compliant measurement frequencies for priority substances with too little information provided in the RBMPs. Assessment of Groundwater Status Strategies and approaches to assess groundwater status were harmonised at the national level but still enabled regions to take local circumstances into account. This has enabled a high 7

8 level of comparability between RBDs. The methodology for deriving groundwater threshold values is quite sophisticated as it can be applied to all types of substances and can take regional characteristics into account. On the other hand, information on groundwater status remains at a general level and provides few details. Moreover, RBMPs where Länder developed separate plans have not provided a comprehensive view of the whole basin. Information regarding the status of groundwater bodies is missing in the plans although threshold values are exceeded at some monitoring points. It is not clear which groundwater bodies are at good status or at risk of failing good status. Environmental objectives and exemptions In total 80% of the German water bodies are subject to an exemption with 79% being subject to an extended deadline (Article 4.4.). Only for 1% of the water bodies will lower objectives be applied (Article 4.5). This seems to be a precautionary approach as there is a lot of uncertainty to the effectiveness of measures. The justification in relation to technical and natural reasons is well defined. For disproportionate costs, the justification provided is unclear as no detailed methodology was reported. Also new derogations under Article 4.7 will not be used. Programme of Measures As with the other sections of the RBMPs, the programmes of measures were developed at the national level under the LAWA. Measures have been developed for each respective theme (i.e. agriculture, groundwater, hydromorphology, water pricing, etc). On the one hand, this ensures a common approach in the Länder, especially in RBDs with multiple administrative districts. On the other hand, the information provided in the plans remains very general as only overarching categories of measures are provided. Detailed information on measures for example, exactly what will be implemented, whether it will be implemented and how it will be financed is missing in the PoM summaries found in the RBMPs. Although Länder level PoMs were developed in Germany, these were not officially reported, leading to a lack of transparency on what is being planned in the individual basins. Additionally, the implementation of the measures is the responsibility of the Länder, so it is hard to assess their comparability within a RBD. With respect to the definition of costs, the plans are working with a narrow interpretation of water services and estimations of the contributions of the different water users to the costs of water services are lacking. Details regarding financial cost recovery are also lacking, as well as for environmental and resource costs. Nevertheless, significant efforts were made to coordinate work on Article 9 among the different Länder. Moreover, historically strong incentive structures through pricing and economic instruments had existed even before WFD implementation. Climate change adaptation, water scarcity and droughts Climate change as well as adaptation is addressed in all the river basins. A climate check was carried out by the majority of river basins to better align the setting of objectives and the selection of measures. However, the details of the methodologies to do so have not been presented. 8

9 3. GOVERNANCE 3.1 Timeline of implementation The German draft RBMPs were made available to the public from 22 December 2008 until 22 July The final RBMPs were published on 22 December As stated above, the RBMPs were reported to the Commission in March 2010: the Danube, Elbe, Weser, Meuse and Schlei/Trave on the 4 th ; the Eider and Warnow/Peene on the 9 th ; the Odra on the 19 th ; and the Ems and the Rhine on the 22 nd. There were no resubmissions. 3.2 Administrative arrangements - river basin districts and competent authorities Based on the federal structure of Germany, the Federal States (and therein the relevant ministries) are responsible for water management within the Länder. The environmental ministries cover water issues as well as other water relevant sectors such as agriculture, energy or climate protection or health 10. A division of competences among water categories is not applied in any of the Länder 11. In cases where a RBD (all RBDs except the Eider, Meuse and Warnow/Peene) is governed by different Länder, bi- or multilateral agreements have been set up. Bavaria and Baden- Wuerttemberg co-ordinated their RBMPs for the Danube through the 'Co-ordination Group upper Danube'. In the German part of the Rhine RBD, the river basin management planning was structured into RBMPs for each Federal State, in accordance with the federal framework for the political, water law and administrative responsibilities in Germany. In preparing the RBMP, the competent ministries of the Federal States and their subordinate agencies were in charge and took over co-ordination tasks. More specialized agencies, e.g. regarding Nature Conservation, Agriculture and Forestry, Health, Consumer Protection and the Water and Shipping Administration of the federal government, were involved when required. For the national co-ordination of the implementation of the WFD in the Ems, Lower Saxony and North Rhine-Westphalia signed an administrative agreement setting up the Ems River Basin Commission (FGG Ems), consisting of the Emsrat and the management office Ems. For the Weser an administrative agreement between the Federal States for the establishment of the Weser river basin authority was signed in 2003 and updated in For the Elbe, the 10 Federal States set up a coordinating institution called 'FGG Elbe' in 2004 to co-ordinate the development of the RBMP and POMs (at the B-level) for the German part of the Elbe. The three Federal States that make up the German part of the Oder produced a common RBMP ('B level') without putting an 'official' co-ordination institution in place (like e.g. the FGG Elbe). The Schlei/Trave RBMP was developed under the co-ordination of the Federal State of Schleswig-Holstein (the Ministry for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Areas). The coordination with Mecklenburg-Vorpommern took place through the contacts between the two This differs from Land to Land. Reference to reporting on Art. 3 (8) in 2004 for every RBD, e.g. for Danube: wnloadcontent&filename=anlage03_donau_komplett.pdf For an overview of reporting see: 9

10 ministries. An intensive exchange of information and data took place between the administrations so that a commonly developed RBMP exists. The guidelines drawn up within the framework of the Common Implementation Strategy played an important role in Germany s efforts to ensure the uniform interpretation of key provisions of the WFD within Germany. In some cases, however, the discussion processes surrounding the CIS guidelines were still on-going whilst practical implementation work had begun at national level, driven by the ambitious timetable of the WFD. As such, full consideration could not be given to these guidelines in the first round of RBMPs. Additional national guidelines were prepared within the RBDs and in the Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser (LAWA). As a result, methodologies and approaches to the implementation of the WFD vary slightly among the Länder but the approaches are nevertheless all compatible with CIS guidelines. These differences can be mainly found in the following areas: inventory (including inventory of priority substance discharges), monitoring structures and methods, criteria for the designation of heavily modified water bodies and determination of good ecological potential, exemptions and the justification thereof, supra-regional management objectives, individual aspects of financial analysis, and reporting modalities. Being aware of different approaches taken among the Länder, in 2011 the LAWA initiated a further harmonisation of methodologies for the second management cycle within its work programme "River basin management (Flussgebietsbewirtschaftung)". The co-ordination among the Länder has led to the following situation when it comes to the development of RBMPs: Danube: No common German plan (B-Level) was developed. Both Länder developed their own river basin management plans for their territorial share of the Danube basin. Rhine: No common German plan (B-Level) was developed. The following Länder submitted their own territorial plans for the Rhine: Baden-Wuerttemberg, Bavaria, Rhineland-Palatine, North Rhine-Westphalia, Saarland, Thuringia and Hessia. Lower Saxony has also developed its own RBMP 12 and its territory is covered by the international plan. Ems: No common German plan (B-Level) was developed. North Rhine- Westphalia developed its own territorial plan covering all the RBDs in its jurisdiction, including the Ems. Lower Saxony did not develop its own RBMP and its territory is covered by the international plan. Weser: One German plan (B-Level) was developed among the Länder. In addition, North Rhine-Westphalia developed its own territorial plan covering all the RBDs in its jurisdiction, including the Weser. Elbe: One German plan (B-Level) was developed among the Länder. Odra: One German plan (B-Level) was developed among the Länder. 12 The C-Level Plan is available at: 10

11 Meuse: Only one Länder lies in the basin. North Rhine-Westphalia developed its own territorial plan covering all the RBDs in its jurisdiction, including the Meuse. Eider: The basin lies solely within one federal state. Schlei/Trave: One German plan (B-Level) was developed and co-ordinated by the two Länder included in the RBD. Warnow/Peene: The basin lies solely within one federal state. 3.3 RBMPs - Structure, completeness, legal status The adopting authorities are the Federal States/Länder. The type of adoption act varies from one Federal State to another. Some laws of the Federal States lay down provisions that allow the adoption of parts of PoMs as legally binding ordinances if needed. There is a general obligation to take the RBMPs into account when individual decisions are taken, including when interpreting broad legal notions. There is no specific provision governing this interpretation and the situation varies between the Federal states, but the general consensus is that RBMPs and PoMs are binding for the authorities responsible for water management. The provisions of RBMPs and PoMs have, for example, specific determining effects as regards the management discretion of authorities when they decide on water use permits. Authorities may also invoke them to interpret and specify broad legal notions, for example the notion adverse changes to waters. At the Federal level, the legal effect is not regulated. At the level of the Federal State it is partly regulated. In Schleswig Holstein, the environment ministry may declare the entire or parts of RBMPs and PoMs legally binding for all authorities. In North-Rhine Westphalia all administrative decision related to the RBMPs and PoMs are legally binding for the parts of the river basins situated North-Rhine Westphalia. In other Federal States the legal effect of the RBMP is not regulated. 3.4 Consultation of the public, engagement of interested parties According to Article 14 of the WFD, the Member States are responsible for public participation, and under German law this responsibility rests with the Länder. As such each federal state conducted its own consultation process. Public participation in accordance with the WFD has clearly shown the expediency of involving stakeholders and in some cases the general public, from an early stage in order to avoid or minimise conflicts of interest further down the line. The consultation process on the draft RBMP was carried out through a number of different routes, including written consultation and web based comments (only in the Danube, Rhine, Ems and Warnow/Peene). In Baden-Wuerttemberg and Bavaria, several informal meetings with local and regional stakeholder groups took place before the formal public participation process. Information on the consultation process could be obtained through the media, internet, printed media, local authorities (not in Schlei/Trave or the Eider); round tables and cooperation between regions were also organized. The stakeholders involved in the consultation included a wide range of sectors, such as water and sanitation, agriculture, energy, fisheries, industry and NGOs. Involvement was through regular meetings as well as round tables and thematic working groups (Odra). Continuous involvement of these 11

12 stakeholders or the general public took place. The comments provided led to adjustments in specific measures (Danube, Rhine) as well as changes to the selection of measures (e.g. in the Danube, Rhine, Elbe). A full list of these changes as a result of the comments gathered during the public participation phase has not been provided in the individual RBMPs 13. In consultations regarding the draft river basin management plans, in the case of international RBDs, German-language versions of the draft international plans have always been published as well, so that the general public has access to overview planning for the entire RBD. However, public participation experience has clearly shown that interest among organised interest groups and the general public tends to focus mainly on regional or local issues, and they are only motivated to become involved when such issues are under debate. Public participation became more active as the debate surrounding local changes and improvements became more detailed and opportunities were available to exert a direct influence. Most often as a result of the consultations, additional information was added to the RBMPs. Only in the case of the Danube, Rhine and Elbe did the consultations lead to changes in the selection of measures or adjustments to measures. Changes in methodologies used were also reported in the Danube and the Rhine 14. In the Baden-Württemberg part of the Rhine, some issues will be clarified in the 2 nd planning cycle. Public participation in the consultations was very low in Eider and Schlei/Trave due to a previous consultation; as such the impact of the consultation on draft plans was considered low. Information for the Ems and Meuse was difficult to separate as North Rhine-Westphalia produced one plan for both basins; therefore, the impact of the consultations for the both basins is unknown as the information was not disaggregated 15. However, the RBMP mentions that the comments have been integrated as far as possible. 3.5 International cooperation and coordination As set out in Table 1.1, Germany contains 8 international RBDs. For the Danube, the Rhine, the Elbe, the Odra, the Ems and the Meuse international plans have been developed. These international plans have been part of the official reporting process. The co-ordination and management of the international plans and the German level plans was split into three levels: Part A, Part B and Part C. Part A comprises the international RBMPs and includes information relating to the transnational significant water management issues (SWMIs) and environmental objectives. Part B is the German level plan where one plan was co-ordinated among all affected Länder (see section 1 for details). Part B plans focus on the national level and provide additional national level SWMIs, environmental objectives, etc Several RBMPs explicitly mention the outcomes of public participation (e.g. NI: BW: Most feedback took place during WFD advisory boards with participation of all stakeholders, not during the official public participation in accordance with Art. 14 For the individual impact of public participation see: 9_BP_Zusammenfassung_des_Ma nahmenprogramms.pdf, p 9-7 and Chapter

13 Part C covers plans developed by individual Länder for each of the basins covered in their territory. All the IRBDs in Germany except the Eider and Schlei/Trave co-operated to develop an international RBMP. International Commissions governed by international agreements have long been established to facilitate co-operation in these IRBDs, all 16 of which predate the WFD. To facilitate the developments of the international RBMPs, technical working groups were set up. Reference is made by the German plans to the two levels of the management for the international basins: Part A, parts of the river basin management plans in case of international RBD, established in co-ordination with all basin countries on international level, which deal with the umbrella management issues of the transboundary basin,; and Part B, the national plans for the national parts of the basins, which focuses on German management issues, objectives and measures. Most of the plans reflect the Part A plans and/or the umbrella management issues in the national plans (e.g., the Elbe and the Baden-Württemberg RBMP for the Danube). The Eider and Schlei/Trave only share a very small part with Denmark and as such an international plan was deemed unnecessary. Co-ordination with Denmark, however, is regulated through an international agreement. As such, for both RBDs Germany and Denmark worked together on a number of topics, including monitoring, environmental objectives, development of PoMs, exemptions and public participation. Integration with other sectors All RBMPs contain links to other sectors and related plans and programmes, mainly agriculture, through the Nitrates National Action Programme and the Rural Development Programmes, the chemical industry, through the IPPC licensing programme, and biodiversity through nature conservation plans. 4. CHARACTERISATION OF RIVER BASIN DISTRICTS 4.1 Water categories in the RBD All four water categories, rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters, occur in Germany. The four WFD water categories vary in occurrence over the 10 German RBDs. The following shows the water categories included in the respective German RBDs: i) Danube, Rhine and Meuse: two water categories - rivers and lakes. ii) Odra, Schlei/Trave, Warnow/Peene: three water categories - rivers, lakes and coastal waters 17. iii) Ems, Weser, Elbe, Eider - four water categories - rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters In all RBDs international commissions existed before; only in case of Meuse there has been a new treaty but a commission existed before. No delineation of transitional water bodies was undertaken. 13

14 4.2 Typology of surface waters The RBMPs show that typologies have been developed for all water categories in the German RBDs. The following table shows the number of defined surface water types for each RBD and water category: RBD Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE Table 4.2.1: Surface water body types at RBD level Source: WISE In general, the approaches follow the LAWA guidelines (Bund/Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser). LAWA documents that have been developed to identify typologies for the water categories of the German RBDs are the RAKON B - Arbeitspapier I_Entwurf_ (typology, reference conditions, class boundaries) and RAKON B - Arbeitspapier II_Stand_07_03_2007 (thresholds for physical parameters), and RAKON B - Arbeitspapier III_Entwurf_ The LAWA documents were used as a common approach to define typology in the German RBDs. 18 Abiotic typologies were validated against biological data for all water categories in each RBD except for the lakes and coastal waters in the Odra RBD and for coastal waters in the Elbe RBD. The reason for this was the on-going development of biological assessment methods and missing data on reference conditions for these water categories. When it comes to the development of reference conditions in general, it can be summarised that these have been established for all water categories in most RBDs. However, it is reported that certain gaps still exist. The RBMPs report that reference conditions are not yet fully developed for rivers for the RBDs of Ems, Weser, Odra and Meuse nor for both lakes and coastal waters in the Odra RBD and coastal waters in the Elbe RBD. The reason for this relates to missing reference data regarding certain Biological Quality Elements (WISE chapter ) when the RBMPs were drafted. For the Ems RBD it is reported that the process on reference conditions is not complete because the development of biological assessment and quantification methods in DE and NL is not fully complete. In addition, the RBMP of North Rhine Westphalia, covering parts of the Weser, Ems and Meuse RBDs, further clarifies the

15 lack of reference conditions indicating the difficulties in defining these for certain basin sharing rivers in karstic areas, which seasonally fall dry. Missing data on reference condition assessment will be supplemented in the next WFD cycle. Therefore, respective results can be expected to be part of the 2015 RBMPs. 4.3 Delineation of surface water bodies In the context of the LAWA, a common approach for most issues related to the delineation of water bodies has been developed that is based on the CIS EU guidance on Water Body Delineation. This approach has been applied in all German RBDs. Small water bodies have been taken into account for all RBDs within the delineation approach based on a requirement of the German water act that small waters also need to be addressed accordingly 19. The minimum thresholds for delineation applied for the different water categories are the same for all RBDs. For rivers, the delineation was undertaken for catchment areas >10 km 2, for lakes >0,5 km 2, for transitional waters >10 km 2 and for coastal waters up to 1 sea mile off the coast. The indications on methods to delineate water bodies in transitional water bodies vary. While the delineation is not relevant for all RBDs (e.g. Danube, Rhine) other RBDs have not delineated transitional water bodies 20 (Odra, Schlei/Trave, Warnow/Peene). The respective RBMPs (Odra, Schlei/Trave, Warnow/Peene) do not outline why no transitional water bodies have been delineated 21. For the other RBDs both the CIS guidance and the Coast guidance was used for water body delineation. The indicators eco-region, salinity and tidal action have been used for delineation. For the Elbe RBMP, a comparison of water body numbers reported in WISE and the ones in the RBMP resulted in differences in relation to some pressures (e.g. diffuse pollution). This difference could be explained by differing survey structures and evaluation algorithms applied for statistical analysis. This will be eliminated in the next planning cycle 22. Table presents the numbers and areas of water bodies in the German RBDs/water category After reporting the RBMPs, German authorities have provided more information about the reason for not delineating some of the transitional waters. On the basis of a common proposal of the Federal coastal States in Germany, the inner coastal waters of the Baltic Sea have uniformly been categorized as coastal waters since they are characterized by wind-driven current dynamics generic for the category coastal waters. Transitional waters are not identified. Transitional waters in terms of article 2 number 6 of Directive 2000/60/EC require an important influence by freshwater currents. As informed by the German authorities after the RBMPs reporting (please see footnote number 19). Transitional water bodies have not been designated in RBDs of Odra, Schlei/Trave, Warnow/Peene. All other relevant RBDs have designated transitional water bodies. As indicated by the German authorities after the RBMP reporting. Water bodies for Germany have been merged since 2009 and figures may differ in comparison to this table. 15

16 Surface Water Groundwater Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal RBD Average Average Average Average Average Number Length (km) Number Area (sq km) Number Area (sq km) Number Area (sq km) Number Area (sq km) DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE NaN Total Table 4.3.1: Surface water bodies, groundwater bodies and their dimensions Source: WISE 4.4 Identification of significant pressures and impacts In the context of the LAWA a largely uniform nationwide approach has been applied for the identification of pressures and impacts in the German RBDs. The work was guided by the documents Arbeitshilfe zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie, (2003) and the LAWA paper Significant Pressures Signifikante Belastungen (2003), that include criteria/thresholds to determine anthropogenic pressures from relevant drivers and to assess their impacts in time to report to the EC. The general method (contained in the mentioned documents) to define significance is based on the EU guidance and includes Länder specific approaches. In general, the DE approaches consider a pressure that is not of natural origin to be significant in the DE RBDs if it is likely to cause a water body to fail the good status. 16

17 RBD No pressures Point source Diffuse source Water abstraction Water flow regulations and morphological alterations River management Transitional and coastal water management Other morphological alterations Other pressures No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE Total Table 4.4.1: Number and percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures Source: WISE 17

18 Figure 4.4.1: Graph of percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures 1 = No pressures 2 = Point source 3 = Diffuse source 4 = Water abstraction 5 = Water flow regulations and morphological alterations 6 = River management 7 = Transitional and coastal water management 8 = Other morphological alterations 9 = Other pressures Source: WISE 18

19 Pressures from point and diffuse source pollution Regarding point source pollution, it can be summarised that for the Danube and Rhine RBD significance of pressures is assessed through a combined application of numerical tools and expert judgement, whereas for the Ems, Weser, Elbe, Odra, Meuse, Schlei/Trave and Warnow/Peene RBDs numerical tools have been used exclusively. Regarding significance of diffuse source pollution a combination of numerical tools and expert judgement has been applied for the Danube, Rhine, Weser, Meuse, Eider, Schlei/Trave and Warnow/Peene RBDs. Numerical tools have been used in the Ems, Elbe and Odra RBDs. Respective information on approaches can be found in the Article 5 assessments as well as in the international RBMPs of the RBDs and in the above-mentioned German guidance documents. According to the LAWA document on Significant pressures Signifikante Belastungen, the identification of pressure significance from point and diffuse sources is performed on the water body level based on emission data and via in-stream assessments. The estimated degree and type of pressures is assessed against in-stream data and thresholds. Pressure assessments for point sources address urban wastewater treatment plants > 2000 PE, industrial emissions and other point source pollution like stormwater overflow. For diffuse pollution load estimations are undertaken to identify pressure significance. In case of absence of respective monitoring data for such estimates, expert judgement is applied. In consequence, two options are implemented to estimate if a pressure is significant regarding diffuse pollution: (i) the emission approach using different nutrient models like MONERIS, MOBINEG or MODIFFUS (Modell zur Abschätzung diffuser Stoffeinträge in die Gewässer) to estimate the relevance of the diffuse pollution on the water body and (ii) the instream approach that aims to assess which pollution sources stem from point sources in order to estimate the remaining diffuse load. Threshold values relevant for point and diffuse pollution - exist for specific chemical substances (WFD Annex VIII), nitrogen, phosphorous, for saprobic organic pollution, eutrophication, biological quality elements, salinity, acidity and water temperature. The LAWA approach outlined above - is applied for all RBDs and through the Länder as the basic national approach for the identification of significant pressures and impacts. In addition, the Länder undertook RBD specific variations/differences to adapt to specific situations, which included: The exceedance of in-stream and emission values was used to determine significance including values laid down in specific licences. Additional aspects to exceedance of emission values were applied in the RBDs and the Länder according to principles of the Directives 91/271 EEG and 76/464/EEG. Almost all RBDs and Länder used the basic principle that significance can be identified if the load from point sources has a major share to the overall load. Further, pressure significance in relation to point and diffuse sources has been defined in many RBDs and the Länder, if a biological quality element was less than good status due to a pressure (e.g. Ems, Elbe, Schlei/Trave, Warnow/Peene RBDs). For nutrients it is often stated that significance is defined where 20% of the total load comes from a specific source (e.g. Eider and Schlei/Trave RBDs). 19

20 Regarding diffuse pollution, various models have been applied (e.g. MONERIS Modelling Nutrient Emission in River Systems, Behrendt et al., in the Danube RBD and MEPHOS in the Rhine RBD). Pressures from water abstraction, water flow regulation and morphological alterations Regarding pressures due to water abstraction, it can be summarised that for all German RBDs numerical tools have been applied for significance definition. Exclusively for the Warnow/Peene RBD a combination of numerical tools and expert judgement has been used. Regarding pressure significance caused by water flow regulation and morphological alterations, a combination of expert judgement was applied for most of the RBDs except the Eider and Schlei/Trave RBDs where exclusively numerical tools have been used. The significance of other pressures has been estimated through expert judgement. Respective information on approaches applied to determine the significance of all pressures above can be found in the Article 5 assessments as well as in the international RBMPs of the RBDs as well as in the above-mentioned German guidance documents. According to the LAWA document on Significant pressures Signifikante Belastungen, guidance is provided for all pressures of water abstraction, water flow regulation and morphological alterations. Water abstraction According to the LAWA document, water abstraction larger than 1/3 of the Mean Low-Flow Discharge (MNQ) and unregulated abstractions of in-stream minimum flow have to be considered as significant pressure and respective information needs to be collected in followup 25. Therefore, a water abstraction is considered significant when it causes a minimum flow that is less than 2/3 of the Mean Low-Flow Discharge 26 or it causes significant impacts on the biological quality elements. It can be said that the above LAWA criteria for pressure significance due to water abstraction have been applied in all RBDs and by all Länder. Some variations occur to adapt to specific cases and data bases. In some cases additional criteria have been applied to the LAWA criterion (water abstraction larger than 1/3 of the Mean Low-Flow Discharge): therefore, significance was defined if 50 l/s were abstracted without recharge (e.g. Rhine RBD, Elbe, Eider, Weser, Odra; Hesse, Saxony-Anhalt). It is reported in the RBMPs, that significance was sometimes defined if 10% of the average flow was abstracted and not discharged back 27 (e.g. Ems RBD, Elbe RBD, LS/Bremen and Thuringia). The international Ems RBMP also refers to licenses and significance thresholds for the German Länder, which have to be met regarding water abstraction. However, the thresholds are not explicitly mentioned in the RBMPs and are reported to be set on case-by-case basis if needed Next RBMP cycle. This criterion for significance a minimum flow = less than 2/3 of the mean flow discharge is part of the LAWA document. In addition, some Länder also applied the significance criterion 10% of average flow abstraction (e.g. see next paragraph). Comparable with 2/3 mean annual flow discharge criterion - directly referring to the abstraction. This criterion has been frequently used for significance determination. Now many EU MS apply further assessments/habitat effect modelling as a case by case approach (e.g. before granting licences for hydropower). 20

21 Water flow regulation and morphological alterations The LAWA developed a classification scheme to assess morphological alterations for rivers and which has been implemented in all DE RBDs. The scheme includes various parameters and 7 classes. Whereas class 1 stands for rivers that are morphologically not altered, class 7 indicates complete alteration of river morphology. This classification scheme was used in all RBDs and by all Länder to assess significant pressures due to water flow regulation and morphological alterations. Additional respective criteria are outlined in the following paragraphs. Water flow regulations that are assessed with classes 6 and 7 for the parameters difference in height (Absturzhöhe) and/or class 7 in relation to the parameter impoundment according to the respective LAWA classification scheme for morphological alteration, are to be assessed in detail for pressure significance. For morphological alterations and according to the LAWA document, water bodies that have been allocated to classes 6 and 7 according to morphological alterations have been further investigated on the significance of pressures 28. The following criteria determine the final significance of identified pressures as impacts from flow regulations and morphological alterations. Significance is defined if (i) classes 6 and 7 regarding overall morphological alteration according to LAWA are assessed, (ii) the biological quality elements are significantly impacted, and/or (iii) up- as well as downstream migration for fish and macroinvertebrates is hindered. It can be said that the above LAWA criteria for pressure significance due to flow regulation and morphological alterations have been applied in all RBDs and also the Länder. A broad spectrum of criteria supports the definition of respective significant pressures. These include in summary connectivity, barriers, energy production, morphology, hydrological cycle, recreation, fishing, drainage, shipping, flood defence, water supply, agriculture and forestry, industrial activities, urbanisation, water transfers, agriculture and others. In some RBDs and Länder additional criteria to LAWA were applied to define significance and to adapt to specific situations. The international Danube RBMP states significance criteria for the Danube mainstream and its tributaries regarding river continuity and habitat interruption and impoundments impacting on flow for the German parts. Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria also introduced several criteria to define significance for the Danube. Baden- Württemberg summarised these in a respective document (Methodenband Bestandsaufnahme der WRRL in BW, LfZ, 2005). Significance was defined where the ecological water status was less than good (e.g. Odra, Schlei/Trave, Warnow/Peene RBDs). The Bavarian RBMP describes several drivers and impacts caused by morphological alterations. Criteria for pressure significance include changes in flow regimes, changes in river connectivity, and impacts due to channelling, bank modifications and river bed modifications. The RBMP does not, however, report the specific values for significance. North-Rhine Westphalia performed an additional assessment of continuity interruptions and their impact on upstream/downstream fish migration regarding passability for fish, correct operation of bypass channels and fish damage in turbines when migrating downstream. In Lower Saxony, Eider RBD, Schlei/Trave RBD and Warnow/Peene RBD continuity interruptions with a vertical drop > 30cm are considered as significant pressure. For the RBDs of Weser, Elbe and Odra not only was a classification of 6 and 7 according to the LAWA 28 If significance is determined according to the mentioned criteria, (operational) monitoring has been undertaken to assess water status (using the most indicative BQE). 21

22 Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water Bathing Birds European Other Fish Habitats Local National Nitrates Shellfish UWWT morphological classification scheme assessed as a significant pressure but also a class 5 assessment. When it comes to ecological assessment, all RBDs used the Biological Quality Elements fish, macroinvertebartes and macrophytes as monitoring indicators for flow regulation and morphological alteration. Other pressures (besides the ones addressed above) have been partly reported in the RBMPs for almost all DE RBDs. No other pressures are mentioned for the Weser RBD and it is reported in the Warnow/Peene RBMP that no other pressures have been identified. Other pressures in DE RBDs include for example invasive species, scarcity and drought, climate changes, sediments transport and quality and thermal load 29. The definition of significance was based on expert judgement for all RBDs and most of the respective approaches were based on a case-by-case approach (e.g. Ems, Elbe, Odra, Meuse, Eider, Schlei/Trave). The sectors listed as contributing significantly to chemical pollution include: industrial emissions (directs and indirect discharges), households (including through sewage treatment plants), atmospheric deposition as well as several other sectors including contaminated lands comprising mining, acid-mine-drainage, corrosion of metallic surfaces as well as roofs and paved areas. 4.5 Protected areas The below table provides an over view on identified protected areas in the German RBDs. Number of PAs RBD DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE Total Table 4.5.1: Number of protected areas of all types in each RBD and for the whole country, for surface and groundwater 30 Source: WISE German authorities have informed that significance criteria for temperature change are included in LAWA paper Significant Pressures (2003). This information corresponds to the reporting of protected areas under the WFD. More/other information may have been reported under the obligations of other Directives. 22

23 5. MONITORING 5.1 Introduction Figure 5.1.1: Maps of surface water (left) and groundwater (right) monitoring stations River monitoring stations Lake monitoring stations Transitional water monitoring stations Coastal water monitoring stations Unclassified surface water monitoring stations Groundwater monitoring stations River Basin Districts Countries outside EU Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) The German surface and groundwater monitoring network had already been organised by 2006 and integrated the WFD monitoring requirements. The design incorporates EU wide, national, RBD and Länder specific and historic considerations (in the sense that historic time series may contain information, relevant for the WFD implementation and should not be interrupted). Since 2006 it has undergone further modifications for different reasons and due to new legal requirements. Experience with the design and the results of the measurement programmes have led to changes in the programme and since there is a new German federal water act 31. The federal water act has been developed as a consequence of the German federalism reform (2006). The concurrent legislative competence for water management is with the German federal authorities while in the new water act the execution remains the responsibility of the Länder. 31 The new German water act came into force after the deadline for the RBMP. 23

24 Therefore, the Länder are responsible for the performing the measurements and monitoring programmes while the federal authorities (UBA, BfG for instance) are responsible for data compilation, reporting (EU, EEA) and harmonisation at the state level. Further changes with relevance for monitoring concern the transposition of Directive 2008/105/EC into national law (further details on this topic are contained in Chapter 9 Assessment of chemical status). In order to ensure a harmonised approach to monitoring for the entire German territory and all German RBDs the Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser (LAWA) has issued a number of papers, defining the framework and modalities of surface and groundwater monitoring. Several aspects and further details of monitoring are also covered in guidance published by the Länder authorities. This top down approach will guarantee consistency across different legal and territorial units. Due to the multidimensionality of monitoring networks (water categories, objectives, programmes, locations, parameters and frequencies) and the complexity of German administrative structures (Federal, RBD specific and Länder structures), requirements for WFD compliant monitoring are addressed in numerous ways, that can only be assessed in detail on a case-by-case basis. The most significant change since the 2009 EC report on monitoring is the increase of the number of operational monitoring sites for rivers. 24

25 QE1.1 Phytoplankton QE1.2 Other aquatic flora QE1.2.3 Macrophytes QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates QE1.4 Fish QE1.5 Other species QE2 Hydromorphological QEs QE3.1 General Parameters QE3.3 on priority specific pollutants QE3.4 Other national pollutants QE1.1 Phytoplankton QE1.2 Other aquatic flora QE1.2.3 Macrophytes QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates QE1.4 Fish QE1.5 Other species QE2 Hydromorphological QEs QE3.1 General Parameters QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants QE3.4 Other national pollutants Rivers Lakes RBD DE1000 DE 2000 DE3000 DE4000 DE5000 DE6000 DE7000 DE9500 DE9610 DE

26 QE1.1 Phytoplankton QE1.2 Other aquatic flora QE1.2.1 Microalgae QE1.2.2 Angiosperms QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates QE1.4 Fish QE1.5 Other species QE2 Hydromorphological QEs QE3.1 General Parameters QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants QE3.4 Other national pollutants QE1.1 Phytoplankton QE1.2 Other aquatic flora QE1.2.1 Microalgae QE1.2.2 Angiosperms QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates QE1.4 Fish QE1.5 Other species QE2 Hydromorphological QEs QE3.1 General Parameters QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants QE3.4 Other national pollutants Transitional Coastal RBD DE1000 DE 2000 DE3000 DE4000 DE5000 DE6000 DE7000 DE9500 DE9610 DE9650 Table 5.1.1: Quality elements monitored QE Monitored QE Not monitored - Not Relevant Source: WISE 26

27 RBD Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Groundwater Surv Op Surv Op Surv Op Surv Op Surv Op Quant DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE Total by type of site Total number of monitoring sites 32 Table 5.1.2: Number of monitoring sites by water category. Surv = Surveillance, Op = Operational, Quant = Quantitative Source: WISE 5.2 Monitoring of surface waters In Germany, roughly 400 surveillance monitoring stations have been established for surface water monitoring. For surveillance monitoring the WFD requires the assessment of all quality elements which are relevant for the respective water category. In Germany all the relevant QEs are monitored for the majority of the surveillance sites. In those cases where quality elements have not been assessed, the selection of quality elements depends upon the RBDs and Länder and the reasoning behind these selections is made transparent. With regard to biological quality elements, all BQEs are monitored at river surveillance sites for 210 (out of ) sites across the entire German territory. This number results in an average area of 1700km 2 per river surveillance site with a full BQE programme the WFD requires one site per 2500km 2 ). Certain selected biological quality elements have not been monitored where no meaningful results were expected. In all these cases, justifications are provided. These justifications refer to, for example, the validity of an assessment method with respect to the specific character of individual water bodies or types. In Germany this concerns: QE 1-4 fish in extremely steep rivers (Danube/BY); QE 1-1 phytoplankton in transitional water bodies (Rhine RBD) The total number of monitoring sites may differ from the sum of monitoring sites by type because some sites are used for more than one purpose. Reported number WISE 2009, while 290 is the reported number in a publication of the German environmental agency (2010). 27

28 Whether phytobenthos is covered cannot be assessed in detail as it is summarised under the aggregated category QE1-2 and thus not distinguished from macrophytes at this reporting level. This is due to a specific method development based on a combination of QE1-2 parameters in DE 34. All biological quality elements are monitored at 49 (out of 67) lake surveillance sites. This is also the case in 19 (out of 30) coastal and 1 (out of 3) transitional water bodies. The situation regarding chemical and physico-chemical parameters (QE3) and hydromorphological parameters (QE2) which are required to be monitored at all surveillance sites depends on the specific Länder, due to the distribution of competences. If Länder-specific approaches are relevant, these are reflected in the RBMPs. Further differences result from (minor) inconsistencies between the exact locations of surveillance sites and those of previously existing monitoring networks. Level 2 reporting refers to aggregated information. Information is aggregated to groups of quality elements but in some cases an unambiguous assessment would need to be based on single (level 3) quality elements and not on level 2 groups of quality elements. This applies, for instance, to QE 2-1 Hydrological regime rivers where two level 3 parameters are differentiated; or to QE 1-2 where different water types need to be assessed for different level 3 elements of QE 1-2. However, there is a common and WFD-compliant understanding of the role of QE 3-1 general parameters, which are a subgroup of QE 3 chemical and physico-chemical parameters. This common understanding is represented by a national guidance paper (RAKON II paper 35 ) which was, according to the German authorities, duly implemented. The German approach covers the requirements of the WFD and the relevant CIS guidance to support biological assessment with the assessment of QE 3-1 (general physico-chemical parameters). This approach is described in detail in the RAKON II paper and can be summarised as follows. Type-specific background values are defined to separate high from good status and orientation standards ( Orientierungswerte ) are applied to differentiate good from moderate status. The interpretation of these quality elements is done systematically and jointly with the biological quality elements. The process and reasoning behind this methodology is extensively described in the RAKON II paper. An indicator for the completeness of the surveillance monitoring is that the number of reported measurement results (for the relevant parameters) is equal to the number of surveillance sites. In the information reported by Germany and explained in the RBMPs, cases are described where there is a mismatch between the reported number of sites and relevant parameters/measurement and/or classification results. These include: Amalgamation of surveillance and operational monitoring (Elbe). The WFD allows for the simultaneous attribution of the same monitoring site to different The German assessment method for macrophytes and phytobenthos (PHYLIB) distinguishes between three different modules: macrophytes, phytobenthos without diatoms and with diatoms. In case one or two of these modules provide no reliable result then only the module(s) with reliable results is/are used for assessment. This specific approach (at level 3) has been handled in reporting by using the aggregated category QE1-2 - other aquatic flora. LAWA-AO, Rahmenkonzeption Monitoring, Teil B: Bewertungsgrundlagen und Methodenbeschreibungen; Arbeitspapier II: Hintergrund- und Orientierungswerte für physikalisch-chemische Komponenten. 28

29 monitoring programmes. Differences are possible in frequencies of monitoring and parameters monitored. For example, operational monitoring may consist of a subset of surveillance parameters but these are measured with a higher frequency. This way a site may produce surveillance and/or operational results depending on the year or monitoring cycle. In addition, the WFD allows, under certain circumstances, for reduced surveillance frequencies. Therefore, merely counting the number of results and comparing these with the number of surveillance sites may be ambiguous or even misleading. However, it is an indicator for the completeness of surveillance and better information is currently not available. There are cases where existing/traditional hydromorphological sites may not coincide with the exact location of surveillance sites, but may still be representative of them (Elbe). Two sites may be representative of different properties of the same water body but they may have different names/locations. There is no commonly accepted methodology to decide on representativity: expert judgement is often the only option. Different frequencies for different QEs at the same site (sometimes all e.g. every 6 years). Different (minimum) frequencies for different QEs are described in Annex V of the WFD (from 3 months to 6 years). Different frequencies are allowed if minimum frequencies are maintained and the necessary level of confidence and precision requires an assessment with higher frequencies. For non-priority specific pollutants (QE3-3) and other national pollutants (QE3-4) in the Danube, Rhine and Elbe it is explicitly said that different programmes (i.e. different parameter selections) are due to heterogeneous pollution situations. For the other RBDs this topic is not explicitly mentioned. The Directive allows for such selections if pollutants are released in significant quantities in the respective (sub)river basin. However, harmonisation within RBDs between the Länder, and nationwide, is considered as an on-going task as indicated by the German authorities. Operational programmes have been established for all RBDs in Germany. Complementary to the generic nature of surveillance monitoring, operational monitoring relates to pressures. Therefore a crucial aspect of operational monitoring concerns the selection of the biological quality element(s) considered to be most sensitive to a pressure. This selection of the most sensitive BQE is complicated by the fact that most water bodies are subject to more than one pressure. In Germany the selection of the most sensitive BQE differentiates single pressures and pressure combinations. The information regarding significance for single pressures is compiled and made transparent in the assessment templates. It is not homogeneous across all Länder or Germany. There are different understandings concerning the selection of which BQE is most sensitive to a certain pressure. Reporting shows which BQEs have been selected for certain pressures but the differences in this selection process between the Länder and/or RBDs cannot be described in detail because the reporting does not provide the reasons for the selection. The reporting on this topic needs to cover 3 variables: 1) pressures, 2) water type (river, lake, transitional, coastal), and 3) location (RBD/Länder). For Germany this results in 248 possible situations (representing combinations of pressure, water type and RBD/ Länder). In 56 occurrences, information on the most sensitive BQEs for the respective situation is provided. For the remaining 190, theoretically possible combinations of information on the most sensitive BQEs are not available. Most of these combinations are irrelevant because they do not occur in reality. However, from the available sources it cannot be said whether the selection of the most sensitive BQE has been made for all practical situations. 29

30 An investigative monitoring programme has been established, comprising 375 river monitoring sites. Concerning the assessment of chemical status 36, it has been reported for all German RBDs that all pollutant groups as listed in the WFD that discharged (in significant quantities) into the (sub)basin are monitored. The respective questionnaire and compliance assessment used the abbreviations QE 3-2, 3-3, 3-4 for these substance groups. The methodology for substance selection is summarised under section 9 Assessment of chemical status. Priority substances (QE3-2) and other specific pollutants (QE3-3) are monitored in all German RBDs. Other nationally regulated pollutants (QE3-4) are reported to be monitored in 6 out of 10 RBDs (Rhine, Ems, Weser, Elbe, Oder, Meuse) in the frame of surveillance monitoring for rivers. The approach to compile a list of RBD-specific substances 37 and the determination of corresponding EQS was initially based on a common list of 110 substances and co-ordinated by LAWA ( ). For the selection of other specific pollutants (QE3-3) and other national pollutants (QE3-4) different approaches are reported for the Länder and the RBDs. Essentially this selection is based on past monitoring or screening results as an emissionoriented criterion, or on emission data and/or on modelling approaches (e.g. HE). As a general rule a substance is integrated into the monitoring programmes if past measurements showed that 50% of the EQS was exceeded. This 50% threshold value is a translation of the WFD term significant quantities 38 into practical technical terms. Different parameter selections between Länder within an RBD are generally justified with spatially differentiated pressure situations (Danube, Rhine, Elbe). The transposition of the Directive 2008/105/EC (which was not legally binding at the time of designing and starting the monitoring programmes) into national law (notification to the EC under MNE(2011)55568) has led to harmonisations in the selection process. Although the process of selecting chemical parameters in a WFD-compliant way is transparent and well-developed, there is still an ambition for further harmonisation and streamlining of the selection methodologies. This harmonisation should lead to a further refinement of substance lists across RBDs and Länder. It is explicitly said to be desired and an on-going process for the Rhine and Elbe under the LAWA, the FGGs and/or the international River Basin Commissions. For priority substances MS are required to monitor those that are discharged into a river basin. In Germany the chemical monitoring is done at the Länder level and the subsequent reporting is done for RBDs at the federal level. A selection of priority substances has not been made but in a precautionary approach all priority substances have been measured. The reporting in this case is available at a detailed Länder-level for single parameters/substances. A compilation of all 33 priority substances across all 16 Länder provided by the federal authorities shows that only 5% of the substances were not monitored, either because of insufficient analytical tools or because they are not discharged (further details see under section 9 Assessment of chemical status). What is not evident from the above mentioned compilation is whether the priority substances are monitored within surveillance and/or The term chemical status used in this context is not consistent with the WFD meaning of chemical status. Term used for both, other specific pollutants (QE3-3) and other national pollutants (QE3-4). WFD Annex V and

31 operational monitoring with a WFD-compliant frequency. This means that the compilation mentioned above provides a good overview but it does not cover all important aspects. Monitoring of sediments and biota for priority substances (according to the option described in Directive 2008/105/EC) has started without concrete results being reported. The preliminary programme entails sediments in the Rhine, Danube, Weser and Warnow/Peene RBD and biota only in the Danube RBD 39. Monitored parameters include priority substances (QE3-2) but also some other relevant pollutants (QE3-3). The corresponding EQS determination, substance selection, method development and other specifications are only in only in an early phase and a complete and consistent picture cannot be given from the available sources. Grouping of water bodies is mentioned in the RBMPs and the methodology is largely described in a consistent way. It either refers to the logic of the CIS guidance and allows for grouping according to similar/same type and pressure, or to a North Rhine-Westphalian (NRW) regional guidance document (Leitfaden Oberflächengewässer Teil B (2008)). This NRW guidance on monitoring goes beyond the usual approach to grouping by introducing a proposal for a validation of grouping. It is proposed in the NRW guidance to rotate monitoring sites and assess whether results are equivalent. There are remaining differences in the understanding and application of grouping of water bodies. Examples for different understandings and approaches to grouping are: Some Länder use the term grouping if the result of the BQE assessment in one water body is considered to be valid for other neighbouring or similar water bodies, while other Länder (BW) state explicitly that this is not grouping. In the Danube RBD grouping is mentioned as a tool in the RBMP but almost all water bodies are monitored, thus no extensive application of grouping has been made, while in other cases there is no reference to grouping in the RBMP but the monitoring results show that a significant share of status classification is based on grouping (Elbe, Schlei/Trave, Warnow/Peene, Odra, Elbe, Weser). The results mentioned above result from a comparison of the number of monitored water bodies with the number of classified water bodies. Apart from the methodological approach, described above, the practical application of grouping is assessed at the RBD level, based on an evaluation of German reports on monitoring and status classification. These have been provided for all German RBDs. The evaluation shows that the importance of grouping is very different between the RBDs. For example, 95% of the water bodies in the Danube RBD have been monitored but only 18% of the water bodies in the Warnow/Peene RBD. The interpretation of these results needs to take the different water body sizes into account (mean size from 31 km (Danube) to 9 km (Warnow/Peene) for river water bodies). There was no grouping of transitional water bodies. 82% of all coastal water bodies have been monitored. For the Danube (IKSD), Rhine (IKSR), Elbe (ICPER), Odra (ICPO) and Meuse (IMC) international monitoring is covered in the national/international RBMP and/or reported to 39 No information is provided on additional ones 31

32 WISE. The approaches to international monitoring are, however, different between the RBDs and information is provided at different levels of detail. For example: 1) Rhine mentions IKSR and provides a link while 2) Elbe considers all national monitoring as part of international efforts and gives details about shared stations; 3) neither the RBMP for the Ems nor the information reported to WISE refers to international monitoring co-ordination. 40 The following papers are of relevance for monitoring and they are mentioned in reporting (even when they are named as drafts, they are duly implemented and taken into account by the Länder ): RAKON B - Arbeitspapier I_Entwurf_ RAKON B - Arbeitspapier II_Stand_07_03_2007 (English version available) RAKON B - Arbeitspapier III_Entwurf_ In addition there is a regional monitoring guidance for NRW, entitled: Leitfaden Oberflächengewässer Teil B (2008) 5.3 Monitoring of groundwater The required groundwater monitoring programmes (quantitative, chemical surveillance/ operational) have been established. The table below compiles the reported basic summary and generic data for all German RBDs. Reporting includes evidence collected at parameter level. Other pollutants (QE3) are reported in an aggregated way as a group. As for all other topics the selection of parameters and the programme design for groundwater monitoring highlights the differences between the RBDs and Länder. The descriptions of design considerations are qualitative and they reflect the Directive and guidance. The design considerations emphasise that the selection of chemical parameters/other pollutants (apart from those that are compulsory) depend on the pressure situation/risks (Article 5), land use, trends and on past measurement results. It is also mentioned that threshold values for GWD Annex II pollutants have been applied and that the monitoring often goes beyond these substances. In all plans trend detection is mentioned and since 2008 there is a LAWA 42 method for trend detection (most plans make an explicit reference to this method developed prior to the transposition of the GWD). 40 In the information provided to the Commission under the Pressures and Measures project it has been pointed by the German authorities that internationally coordinated monitoring will be in place 41 all RAKON papers available under: 42 LAWA (UA GWTR), Bundesweit einheitliche Methode zur Ermittlung signifikanter und anhaltend steigender Schadstofftrends nach Artikel 5 und Anhang IV GWTR (Teil 3) in LAWA-Ausschuss Grundwasser und Wasserversorgung. 32

33 In some RBMPs trend (and trend reversal) detection is mentioned in the context of operational monitoring and in others as a design consideration for surveillance (depending on programme, RBD and Länder). This may pose some difficulties in establishing the link between long term trend detection and the assessment of the effect of measures. The sensitivity and performance of trend detection depends on the existence of long term time series and historical datasets. Due to missing time series (over at least the period of 6 years as required by the Directive) trend analysis could not be performed for all groundwater bodies/all substances of concern. There is only one international groundwater body in the Danube catchment shared between DE and AT. There is a bilateral agreement for the management of the groundwater body. References: The LAWA document: FACHLICHE UMSETZUNG DER RICHTLINIE ZUM SCHUTZ DES GRUNDWASSERS VOR VERSCHMUTZUNG UND VERSCHLECHTERUNG (2006/118/EG) is mentioned regarding the topic of trend detection. 5.4 Monitoring of protected areas In the case of surface water abstractions specific programmes have been established, mentioned and described in the RBMPs (with references to the DWD and Article 7 WFD). In other cases it was stated explicitly that no drinking water abstractions exist (Odra, Eider, Schlei/Trave, BW). For groundwater the general statement across all RBDs is that no additional monitoring arises in terms of station numbers, locations or parameters. The total number of groundwater monitoring sites associated with drinking water abstractions is reported to be 1338 (no stations in Eider, Schlei/Trave RBDs). For the other protected areas the following numbers of surface water monitoring sites have been reported: 33

34 RBD Surface drinking water abstraction Quality of drinking water Bathing water Birds sites Surface waters Fish Habitats sites Nitrates Shellfish UWWT Groundwater drinking water DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE Total Table 5.4.1: Number of monitoring stations in protected areas 43 Source: WISE 43 Number of sites calculated from data reported at site level. If no data reported at site level, then table supplemented with data reported at programme level. 34

35 6. OVERVIEW OF STATUS (ECOLOGICAL, CHEMICAL, GROUNDWATER) The following information regarding the assessment of ecological status in Germany has been reported. RBD Total High Good Moderate Poor Bad Unknown No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE Total Table 6.1: Ecological status of natural surface water bodies. Source: WISE RBD Total High Good Moderate Poor Bad Unknown No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE Total Table 6.2: Ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies. Source: WISE 35

36 RBD Total Good Poor Unknown No. % No. % No. % DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE Total Table 6.3: Chemical status of natural surface water bodies. Source: WISE RBD Total Good Poor Unknown No. % No. % No. % DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE Total Table 6.4: Chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies Source: WISE RBD Total Good Poor Unknown No. % No. % No. % DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE Total Table 6.5: Chemical status of groundwater bodies. Source: WISE 36

37 RBD Total Good Poor Unknown No. % No. % No. % DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE Total Table 6.6: Quantitative status of groundwater bodies. Source: WISE 37

38 RBD Total Global status (ecological and chemical) Good or better 2009 Good or better 2015 Increase Good ecological status 2021 Good chemical status 2021 Good ecological status 2027 Good chemical status 2027 Global exemptions 2009 (% of all SWBs) No. % No. % % No. % No. % No. % No. % % % % % DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE Total Table 6.7: Surface water bodies: overview of status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and Waterbodies with good status in 2009 fall into the following category: 1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered Waterbodies expected to achieve good status in 2015 fall into the following categories: 1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered 2. Chemical status is good, and the ecological status is moderate or below but no ecological exemptions 3. Ecological status is high or good, and the chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no chemical exemptions 4. Ecological status is moderate or below, and chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no ecological nor chemical exemptions Note: Waterbodies with unknown/unclassified/not applicable in either ecological or chemical status are not considered Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027) Art 4.4 Art 4.5 Art 4.6 Art Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs. 38

39 Ecological status Good ecological status 2021 Good ecological status 2027 Ecological exemptions (% of all SWBs) RBD Total Good or better Good or better Increase Art 4.4 Art 4.5 Art 4.6 Art 4.7 No. % No. % % No. % No. % % % % % DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE Total Table 6.8: Natural surface water bodies: ecological status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027) 45 Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs. 39

40 Chemical status Good chemical status 2021 Good chemical status 2027 Chemical exemptions (% of all SWBs) BD Total Good or better Good or better Increase Art 4.4 Art 4.5 Art 4.6 Art 4.7 No. % No. % % No. % No. % % % % % DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE Total Table 6.9: Natural surface water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027) 46 Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs. 40

41 GW chemical exemptions (% GW chemical status Good Good chemical of all GWBs) chemical RBD Total Good or better Good or better Increase status 2027 Art Art Art Art status No. % No. % % No. % No. % % % % % DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE Total Table 6.10: Groundwater bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027) 47 Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs. 41

42 GW quantitative exemptions Groundwater quantitative status Good Good (% of all GWBs) quantitative quantitative RBD Total Good or better Good or better Increase Art Art Art Art status 2021 status No. % No. % % No. % No. % % % % % DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE Total Table 6.11: Groundwater bodies: quantitative status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027) 48 Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs. 42

43 RBD Ecological exemptions (% of Total Ecological potential Good Good all HMWB/AWB) HMWB ecological ecological Good or better Good or better Increase Art Art Art Art and potential 2021 potential AWB No. % No. % % No. % No. % % % % % DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE Total Table 6.12: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: ecological potential in 2009 and expected ecological potential in 2015, 2021 and Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027) 49 Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs. 43

44 RBD Chemical exemptions (% of Total Chemical status Good Good chemical all HMWB/AWB) HMWB chemical Good or better Good or better Increase status 2027 Art Art Art Art and status AWB No. % No. % % No. % No. % % % % % DE % % 0.8% DE % % 6.5% DE % % 1.4% DE % % 0.6% DE % % 3.6% DE % % 0.7% DE % % 10.1% DE % % 0.0% DE % % 0.0% DE % % 0.0% Total Table 6.13: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and Source: WISE (for data on status in 2009, 2015 and exemptions) and RBMPs (for data on status in 2021 and 2027) 50 Data for 2009 and 2015 extracted from WISE. Data for 2021 and 2027 established during the compliance assessment of the RBMPs. 44

45 Figure 6.1: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2009 High Good Moderate Poor Bad Unknown River Basin Districts Countries outside EU Figure 6.2: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2015 Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i). Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 45

46 Figure 6.3: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009 Good or better Moderate Poor Bad Unknown River Basin Districts Countries outside EU Figure 6.4: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015 Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(ii). Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 46

47 Figure 6.5: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2009 Good Failing to achieve good Unknown River Basin Districts Countries outside EU Figure 6.6: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2015 Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 47

48 Figure 6.7: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009 Good Failing to achieve good Unknown River Basin Districts Countries outside EU Figure 6.8: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015 Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 48

49 Figure 6.9: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2009 Good Poor Unknown River Basin Districts Countries outside EU Figure 6.10: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2015 Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 49

50 Figure 6.11: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2009 Good Poor Unknown River Basin Districts Countries outside EU Figure 6.12: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2015 Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 50

51 7. ASSESSMENT OF ECOLOGICAL STATUS OF SURFACE WATERS In general, national methodological approaches for ecological status assessment follow the LAWA guidelines (Bund Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser) for all RBDs and for all four water categories (rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters) in Germany. These guidelines are: RAKON B - Arbeitspapier I, Entwurf ; RAKON B - Arbeitspapier II, Stand ; RAKON B - Arbeitspapier III, Entwurf There was noticeable improvement when the situation on ecological assessment methods available for Germany in 2007 was compared to the assessment methods reported in all available DE RBMPs. Ecological assessment methods that were lacking for all BQEs and for all water categories in the RBDS Elbe, Weser, Ems and Odra in 2007 are now in place. Analysis and assessment methodologies were further refined. As per the end of 2009, across all water body categories and biological quality elements, a total of 12 out of 15 assessment methods required under the WFD had been nationally agreed and were ready to use- as pointed by the German authorities. 7.1 Ecological status assessment methods EU WFD compliant assessment methods for ecological status in Germany are reported to be fully developed in all RBDs for the water category rivers and for all biological quality elements, partly developed for the water category lakes in all RBDs as methods for BQEs macroinvertebrates and fish are lacking; partly developed for transitional waters in the relevant RBDs of Eider, Elbe, Weser and Ems; fully developed in coastal waters in the relevant RBDs of Eider, Elbe, Odra, Weser, Ems, Schlei/Trave, Warnow/Peene. Although assessment methods for ecological status are reported to be in place as outlined above, for some water categories and biological quality elements they are still missing. These are: Lakes in all RBDs: BQEs macroinvertebartes and fish. Transitional waters (RBDs Eider, Elbe, Weser and Ems): BQE phytoplankton. For all RBDs it is reported in the plans that methods for the assessment on ecological status regarding fish and macroinvertebrates are under development. Various RBMPs state that some results still await the outcomes of the intercalibration exercises to ensure final confidence and precision of methods. Details are provided in the following paragraphs. In 51

52 general, all RBMPs refer to the national RAKON method for ecological assessment and also report them in specific national documents. Also as outlined in Chapter 5 of this report (operational monitoring), the RBMPs report that specific sensitive biological quality elements are used to assess ecological status in relation to certain key pressures and impacts (eutrophication, organic enrichment, acidification, hydromorphological alterations, specific chemical pollutant). Standards have been developed for the general physico-chemical parameters (QE 3-1), which are assessed in support of the biological quality elements. A guidance document, issued by the Bund/Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser (LAWA) describes the approach that has been implemented (RAKON B - Arbeitspapier II, Stand ). This guidance differentiates background values which distinguishes high from good status. Orientation values indicate boundaries between good and moderate as well as worse status. The German methodological approach to deal with the supporting role of general physicochemical parameters could be considered reasonable and in line with the meaning and the wording of the legal pieces 51. Hydromorphological classification was undertaken in Germany to identify the significance of pressures for the water categories. However, specific standards or methods regarding hydromorphological quality elements for ecological status assessment are not reported in the RBMPs for all RBDs and all Länder. In addition, no class boundaries for hydromorphology are yet reported to support biological elements in ecological status assessment. All of this is valid for rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters. Specifically, for the water category of rivers all German RBMPs report that hydromorphological assessments support the BQEs in overall ecological status assessment but respective methods have not been reported 52. In case a BQE is close to a class boundary, information for supporting elements is used to upgrade or downgrade the assessment class. It is outlined that a comprehensive method to determine and assess hydromorphological quality elements in rivers is not yet in place. A respective development will be undertaken in the second WFD implementation cycle. For lakes, no detailed methods on hydromorphological assessments are reported in the RBMPs for all the DE RBDs, neither for hydrological regime nor morphological condition. Transitional waters are relevant for the RBDs of Elbe, Ems, Weser and Eider. Although, it has been reported for all of these RBDs that hydromorphology supports the assessment on ecological status, the specific method has not been reported. Coastal waters are relevant for the RBDs of Elbe, Ems, Weser, Odra and Eider and in the RBMPs no specific method is reported on how hydromorphology supports the assessment on ecological status. For the RBDs of Ems, Weser, Elbe, Odra and Eider the hydromorphological quality element tidal regime is mentioned in the context that the element needs yet to be measured. No further specification is given The assessment of general physico-chemical parameters cannot overrule the biological quality elements but require joint interpretation. If there are contradictory results from the assessment of biological and physicochemical QEs, the latter may only lead to a different classification if the BQEs are affected with high uncertainties. German authorities have informed after the RBMPs reporting that an overview about these relationships is given in the UBA research report Further development of biological investigation procedures for consistent implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive and will be published in the series UBA-Texte. 52

53 Ecological Quality Standards have been set and applied for other specific pollutants (QE 3-3) and other national pollutants (QE 3-4) at the time of developing the RBMPs. This process was undertaken separately on the German Länder level but overall coordination at the federal level was done initially through the LAWA ( ). For the selection of relevant pollutants a common list of substances was the starting point. The selection of relevant substances from this initial list was done at the Länder level and justified with regionally different pressure and in-stream situations. The selection was done based on data sources such as monitoring results, screening exercises, modelling and emission data, depending on availability of information. As a common rule, it was established that a substance is considered relevant if the concentration in past monitoring exercises exceeded 50% of the environmental quality standard. This is a technically sound approach to deal with the term discharged in significant quantities from the WFD. Ordinances on substance selection and EQS have been developed at the Länder level and the RBMPs of BY, MV, SH, RP also refer to these ordinances. Further references are made to the RAKON and LAWA guidances (without further details). In 2010, however, a draft ordinance for the German federal level was developed 53 that integrates and complements the Länder specific ordinances. This initiative shall lead to a harmonisation of the lists of relevant pollutants and the corresponding EQS. EQS are based on EU chemicals assessment and according to Annex V, WFD. From valid long-term toxicity tests at different species levels the most sensitive value is selected for further processing. Many EQS are set for suspended matter/sediments due to analytical difficulties with very low concentration levels in the whole water sample. The assessment of the ecological status for water bodies in relation to the different biological quality elements is clearly based on the one-out-all-out principle for all water categories and RBDs in Germany. Concerning confidence, precision and uncertainties for biological assessments, in all German RBMPs reference is made to the RAKON III guidance paper, which exhibits a short section on quality assurance of biological data. This chapter only provides very general advice on how a quality assurance could be introduced, how it should look like and what should be included but it does not provide concrete advice, data or procedures. RBMPs of BY, NRW and others clearly state that the BQE methods are newly developed and not much experience exist to address the issue of uncertainty and its different sources. Although only some RBMPs state this fact of uncertainty explicitly, it applies to all RBDs. Longer time series or more assessments over the years and improved reference values are said to be the major factors to reduce uncertainty. However, different levels are differentiated in the Rhine, Danube and Elbe RBMPs and these levels are linked to the application of standardised methods. Level 1) low: the assessment is carried out by experts, 2) medium: LAWA and WFD compliant assessment methods have been used but not all assessment results for all QEs are ready, 3) high: The assessment has been fully performed with LAWA and WFD compliant assessment methods. For temporal and spatial variability - as a general remark the need to increase sampling number is mentioned, but no systematic approach is outlined. Temporal variability is said to be specifically an issue for Phytoplankton. The RAKON guidance paper on EQS for general physico-chemical parameters mentions the role of these parameters in case of highly variable 53 Oberflächengewässerverordnung OGewV 53

54 BQE assessment results. Another aspect in the context of confidence/precision/uncertainty concerns the validity of grouping of water bodies. The NRW regional guidance document (Leitfaden Oberflächengewässer Teil B (2008)) proposes in this concern to validate the grouping approach. It is proposed to move the sampling site that is considered to be representative for the whole group of water bodies, from one water body to the next and to evaluate the differences found. Regarding type specific ecological assessment for all water categories, the available German RBMPs report that ecological assessment methods address all types identified for rivers in the German RBDs and class boundaries are reported except for the Eider RBD. Lake types are addressed with ecological assessment and class boundaries are in place for most cases except for the Eider, Ems and Weser RBDs. For transitional and coastal waters the picture in how far different types are addressed with ecological assessment in the RBDs is not reported in full transparency as part of the respective RBMPs. Gaps can be identified but are not reported in specific in the RBMPs. Comparing intercalibration class boundaries of the national German classification guidance (RAKON documents) with the boundaries of the EC Intercalibration Decision 54 certain issues remain open and are listed in the paragraph below. For rivers in the RBDs Danube, Rhine, Ems, Weser, Elbe, Odra, Meuse, Eider, Schlei/Trave, and Warnow/Peene class boundaries given for macroinvertebrates are aligned with those in the EC Intercalibration Decision (2008/915/EC). The boundaries given for other aquatic flora indicate different sets of boundaries for same type and same metric. Only a few values are aligned to the boundaries of the EC Intercalibration Decision (2008/915/EC). However, the RBMPs refer to this inconsistency and report respectively for inconsistent boundaries that intercalibration is not yet completed. No further details are reported. For lakes and the BQE phytoplankton in the RBDs Danube, Rhine, Ems, Weser, Elbe, Eider, Schlei/Trave, and Warnow/Peene class boundaries are consistent or even more stringent (0.8 for HG and 0.6 for GM) than boundaries in the official IC decision given for Chlorophyll-a (0.55 for HG and 0.32 for GM). The boundaries for other aquatic flora (macrophytes) are consistent with or slightly more stringent than those given for lake macrophytes in the EC Intercalibration Decision(2008/915/EC). Class boundaries reported for Chlorophyll-a in lakes of the Odra RBD are fully matching with the values of the EC Intercalibration Decision (2008/915/EC). No information on class boundaries for the reported lake in the Meuse RBD (also see Chapter 4 of this Annex) is reported. For coastal waters of the Odra, Schlei/Trave and Warnow/Peene RBDs the reported class boundaries for both angiosperms and phytoplankton match the values of the EC Intercalibration Decision (2008/915/EC). For the RBDs Ems and Weser the reported class boundaries are partly aligned to the values of the EC Intercalibration Decision. For the Eider RBD the values are consistent. However, for angiosperms two sets of boundaries are reported for the same national type and only one of them has the consistent boundaries (0.9 for HG and /915/EC: Commission Decision of 30 October 2008 establishing, pursuant to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the values of the Member State monitoring system classifications as a result of the intercalibration exercise (notified under document number C(2008) 6016). 54

55 0.7 for GM), whereas the other set has less stringent boundaries (0.8 for HG and 0.6 for GM) than the ones of the EC Intercalibration Decision. Some open issues remain when it comes to the translation of intercalibration results to the national German surface water types. This is in particular the case for rivers, lakes and coastal waters in the RBDs of the Ems, Weser, Odra, Meuse and Eider. However, referring to the above paragraphs, class boundary values regarding macroinvertebrates for rivers are aligned with the values of the EC Intercalibration Decision for all RBDs. For lakes the intercalibration results are fully translated to national types in the Elbe, Schlei/Trave and Warnow/Peene RBDs and partly for the Danube RBD. Regarding coastal waters full translation of IC values to national types is given in the RBDs of Schlei/Trave and Warnow/Peene and partly in the Elbe RBD. 55

56 Phytoplankton Macrophytes Phytobenthos Benthic invertebrates Fish Physico-Chemical Hydromorphological Phytoplankton Macrophytes Phytobenthos Benthic invertebrates Fish Physico-Chemical Hydromorphological Phytoplankton Macroalgae Angiosperms Benthic invertebrates Fish Physico-Chemical Hydromorphological Phytoplankton Macroalgae Angiosperms Benthic invertebrates Physico-Chemical Hydromorphological Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal RBD DE DE DE3000 DE4000 DE5000 DE DE DE9500 DE DE Table 7.1.1: Availability of biological assessment methods Assessment methods fully developed for all BQEs Assessment methods partially developed or under development for all or some BQEs Assessment methods not developed for BQEs, no information provided on the assessment methods, unclear information provided - Water category not relevant Source: RBMPs 56

57 7.2 Application of methods and ecological status results The German RAKON guidance states clearly that all quality elements need to be monitored at surveillance sites. There is evidence about coverage of biological quality elements at surveillance sites. All biological quality elements have been reported for 210 surveillance sites at rivers, for 49 surveillance sites at lakes, 19 surveillance sites in coastal waters and 1 surveillance site in a transitional water body. Based on these numbers, a number of surveillance sites are not addressed and not all biological quality elements have been assessed. Justifications are reported that a BQE was not included in the monitoring programme if no meaningful result could be expected. For instance, this is the case for the BQE fish in rivers with extremely high slopes or in high mountainous altitude where the natural species composition is too poor for an assessment. Also the BQE phytoplakton in the plankton phaseout zone of transitional waters may result in implausible classifications. Further explanations for missing results of biological assessments were not found in the available RBMPs and sources. All general physico-chemical parameters were assessed for all surveillance sites across the entire national territory. The same is true for other specific pollutants, which were measured at all 287 rivers, 36 lakes, 32 coastal and 5 transitional German surveillance sites. For hydromorphology the situation is very heterogenous and remains unclear for the different parameters and regional aspects. After the German RBMPs were officially reported, the German authorities indicated that a harmonised assessment method ( Strukturkartierung ) was used and that the assessment of hydromorphology at surveillance sites was made by integrating elements of a distinct water stretch. The authorities concluded that an assessment at the site itself does not give useful results. This approach may result in slightly different site selections and hydromorphological parameters may therefore not be present for the exact location of a surveillance site, but still be transferable and valid for this site. In general the most sensitive biological quality elements have been selected to detect key pressures and impacts and this is therefore reflected in the design of operational monitoring networks. Different understanding can be analysed concerning the decision, which BQE is most sensitive to a certain pressure/impact. For rivers of all RBDs Danube, Weser, Elbe, Meuse, Eider, Schlei/Trave, and Warnow/Peene the operational monitoring clearly uses the most sensitive BQE for ecological status assessment regarding specific pressures/impacts. The operational monitoring of the Odra RBD applies all BQEs for status assessment. Furthermore, it appears that for rivers in the Rhine, Ems and Weser RBDs that all BQEs are monitored for ecological status assessment. Operational monitoring for lakes, transitional and coastal waters in the RBDs of Danube, Weser, Elbe, Meuse, Eider, Schlei/Trave, and Warnow/Peene uses the most sensitive BQE to investigate on specific pressures and impacts. Again for the Odra RBD, all BQEs are used for pressure related assessment of ecological status in the lakes and for coastal waters only the BQE of macroinvertebrates is applied plus an undefined supportive general quality element. For the Rhine RBD the most sensitive BQE is used for status assessment in lakes but it is not reported which ones. For the RBDs Ems and Weser it is reported that for lakes all BQEs except some elements like other species and fish are included. Supporting quality elements are part of operational monitoring except elements like hydromorphology and other national pollutants. For the mentioned RBD s transitional waters, the BQEs phytoplankton, priority 57

58 substances, non-priority specific pollutants, and other national pollutants 55 are not addressed but all other BQEs and supporting QE are monitored. For related coastal waters all BQEs except elements like other species and hydromorphological quality elements are monitored. When it comes to confidence, precision and uncertainty of monitoring results information is limited. It is reported for all RBDs and water categories that certain methods are applied without indicating in detail which ones. One indicated reason for many RBDs is that assessment methods have only recently been developed. Uncertainties in assessment relate to seasonal and inter-annual variability and sampling in certain times of the year increases the confidence (benthic and macrophytes, fish). Also several years of sampling will likely reduce uncertainty. Improvement on the situation of uncertainties is reported to be planned in all RBMPs for all German RBDs. This includes the need to fill gaps in relation to missing reference sites and incomplete databases through the further development of assessment procedures/methods, the finalisation of the incomplete intercalibration processes and the increase data exchange. 7.3 River basin specific pollutants RBD CAS Number Substance Percentage Water Bodies Failing Status (%) DE1000 Bentazon DE1000 Chloridazon DE1000 Copper Surface Water Body in Bavaria (Illerkanal) DE1000 Dibutylzinn 1 Surface Water Body in Bavaria (Lech) DE1000 Dichlorprob DE1000 MCPA DE1000 MCPA BW: 1 WB (Stehebach) DE1000 Mecoprob DE1000 Metolachlor DE2000 Bentazon Bavaria - 'some' agricultural areas DE2000 Bentazon, Chloridazon, linuron, Dimethoat, Dichlorprop, MCPa, Mecoprop, Parathionethyl R-P RBMP, 61 WBs faling GES due to these substances - no dissagregation DE2000 Heavy metals (Arsen, Hessen RBMP, approx. 9 Chrome, Copper, Zinc) WBs DE2000 MCPA BW, Neckar, 2 WBs DE2000 Mecoprop (MCPP) BW, Neckar, 2 WBs DE2000 BW, Alpenrhine-Bodensee, Mecoprop, MCPA, agricultural areas; in 2 WBs Dichlorprop, Chloridazon, GES is 'at risk', but not Bentazon failing GES DE2000 DE2000 Non-priority heavy metals Non-priority PSMs NRW RBMP, 19,8% of the NRW Federal State area facing a 'signficant pressure' from these substances NRW RBMP, 3% of the NRW Federal State WBs failing the EQS 55 Different indications are reported on non-specific pollutants regarding monitoring. 58

59 RBD CAS Number Substance Percentage Water Bodies Failing Status (%) DE2000 Parathion-Ethyl BW, Neckar, 1 WB DE2000 PCB Hessen RBMP, 11 WBs DE2000 PCB 153 R-P RBMP, no number of DE2000 DE2000 DE2000 polychloriertes Biphenylen (PCB) 138 PSM (pesticides) PSM (pesticides) overall WBs R-P RBMP, no number of WBs Hessen RBMP, approx. 51 WBs BW, Main: 2 WBs, Oberrhein: 4 WBs failing GES DE2000 Pyrazon (Chloridazon) BW, Neckar, 1 WB DE2000 Zinc R-P RBMP, 3 SWBs DE3000 Arsenic 4,1% of surface water bodies DE3000 Copper DE3000 Nitrogen DE3000 PCB 52 DE3000 Phosphorus DE3000 Zinc DE4000 Chloride Werra and Weser DE4000 Kalium Werra and Weser DE4000 Magnesium Werra and Weser DE5000 DE6000 DE7000 Arsenic DE7000 Chrome 0,1% of surface water bodies DE7000 Copper DE7000 Dichlorvos DE7000 Fenthion DE7000 Hexazinon DE7000 MCPA DE7000 Mecoprop DE7000 Nitrogen DE7000 PCB 52 DE7000 Phosphorsäuretributylester DE7000 Phosphorus DE7000 Zinc DE9500 Nitrogen DE9500 Phosphorus DE9610 Bentazon 7 WB DE9610 Malathion 1 WB DE9610 Mecoprop 1 WB DE9610 DE9610 DE9650 DE9650 Nitrogen Phosphorus Nitrogen Phosphorus Table 7.3.1: River basin specific pollutants causing failure of status Source: RBMPs 59

60 8. DESIGNATION OF HEAVILY MODIFIED WATER BODIES (HMWB) AND ASSESSMENT OF GOOD ECOLOGICAL POTENTIAL Figure 8.1: Map of percentage Heavily Modified and Artificial waterbodies by River Basin District 0 5 % 5 20 % % 40 60% % No data reported River Basin Districts Countries outside EU Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) In Germany, the designation of the number of rivers as heavily modified ranges greatly among the RBDs: the Danube designated 11.59% of its rivers as HMWBs, whereas 62.56% of the river water bodies in the Meuse were designated as HMWB. The German wide average is 38.92%. For lakes the values range between 0% in the RBDs of the Odra, Meuse, Eider, Schlei/Trave and 50% in the Ems. The German average is 12.92%. Transitional water bodies are 100% HMWB and coastal water bodies (German average) to the extent of 6.76%. In the case of AWB, designation ranges between 5.31% (Danube) and 36.64% (Odra) of the river water bodies; values for each RBD are presented in the figure below The German wide average is 15.29%. For lakes the values range between 0% in the RBDs of the Warrnow/Peene, Schlei/Trave and 100% in the Meuse. The German average is 15.59%. 8.1 Designation of HMWBs The main water uses that have led to the designation are navigation, recreation, water supply, power generation, irrigation, water regulation, flood protection, land drainage and other human activities such as urban settlements and conservation of ancient monuments. 60